Haryana

Panchkula

CC/21/2018

ARUN GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SONY INDIA PVT.LTD - Opp.Party(s)

SHUBHANKAR BAWEJA

16 Jan 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	21 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	05.02.2018
Date of Decision	:	16.01.2019

 

Arun Gupta, being S.P.A. holder of Vikas Gupta, S/o Sh. Surinder Pal Gupta resident of H.No.258, Sector 10, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

1. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-18, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road-New Delhi-110044.

 

2. Ultimate Services, Showroom No.55, Sector 5, Swastik Vihar, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula, Haryana, 134109.

 

3. OHI Enterprises, ABI Guzar, Mandir Lane, Residency Road,Srinagar-190001 (Jammu & Kashmir).                                                                       

….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:              Mr.Satpal, President.

Mr.Jagmohan Singh, Member.

Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member.

For the Parties:   Mr. Shubhankar Baweja, Advocate along with complainant. 

                        Mr. Vikrant Sharma, Advocate for the Ops No.1 to 3.

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.     The brief facts of the present complaint as alleged are that the complainant (the complainant is Special Power of Attorney holder) purchased a mobile phone of Sony Make, Model Name XZ Mineral Black with IMEI No.352875080863805 and HSN Code as 85171290 vide Invoice No.1553 dated 01.07.2017 from Sony Smartphone Lounge for a total price consideration of Rs.40,000/-. Soon after purchasing the said mobile the complainant noticed certain defects with its Sim tray, finger print scanner, vibration of the mobile phone and in addition to the said defects another major defect was overhearing. Thereafter, suddenly one day the sim tray got detached from the phone and misplaced somewhere, due to which the complainant could not use his phone in any manner. The complainant took the said mobile phone to the OP No.2 (Ultimate Services) which is an authorized service centre of the Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (OP No.1). After examining the said mobile phone, the representative of the said authorized service centre asked the complainant to deposit the said mobile phone as the sim tray of the mobile phone was not readily available. Further told that the mobile phone shall be sent to the head office for fixation of the said defects. The complainant was assured by the said authorized service centre that said defects shall be fixed and if due to any reason any of the defect could not be fixed the mobile phone shall be replaced and a new mobile phone will be issued against the defective mobile phone as the mobile phone is within warranty period. The complainant being swayed by the representations of the said authorized service centre submitted the said mobile phone for the service on 12.09.2017. The complainant contacted the said authorized service centre and enquired about the status of service request of the said mobile phone, however, it was stated that the mobile has yet not been received back from the head office and complainant was asked to come later. Thereafter, a message was received from the said authorized service centre that the mobile phone is ready for delivery. The mobile phone was in the possession of the said authorized service centre for almost 25 days. On 06.10.2017, the complainant went to the service centre with a hope that he shall be able to use his mobile phone in a peaceful and desired manner. However, to the utter shock and dismay of the complainant nothing was done by the said service centre and the mobile phone was returned to the complainant in the same condition by stating that the part is not available with the Sony India Pvt. Ltd. and nothing can be done by them. The complainant asked the said service centre to get the same replaced being their duty to provide services as the said mobile phone was not even used for 2 months and is in warranty period. However, the said mobile phone was returned to the complainant asking him to get it replaced from another service centre, vide Job No.W117091200704 dated 06.10.2017. Thereafter, the complainant took the said mobile phone to another authorized service centre of the Sony India Pvt. Ltd. at Karnal and told them about the defects. After checking the details of the mobile phone on their system it was told that there is some serious issue and they would not be able to open a job sheet and take the mobile phone for required services as another new mobile phone has already been issued by the Sony India Pvt. Ltd. at Srinagar against the present mobile phone. Complainant was suggested to contact the Ultimate Service Centre immediately. The complainant immediately contacted the Ultimate Service Centre and asked the details of the mobile phone. The said service centre upon checking the details reiterated that the mobile phone has already been exchanged at Srinagar. The complainant pressed with the service centre to give all the details with respect to the mobile phone; upon which a retail invoice dated 02.11.2017 was generated by the service centre and was given to the complainant. The issue being grave and serious in nature the complainant asked the service centre as to how the mobile phone can be replaced and another mobile phone could be issued having same IEMI number to someone else, to which the service centre said that nothing can be done by them as the same is done after verification of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. and complainant was asked to make a complaint with the company. A bare perusal of the above said retail invoice, having Job No.W117110201015 and Ticket ID 17110201015, generated at OHI Enterprises, Srinagar (OP No.3) clearly shows that the IMEI number mentioned in the invoice is exactly the same and HSN Code is also the same as of mobile phone owned and possessed by the complainant. It is further evident from the said invoice that on 14.11.2017 a new mobile phone with Swap Model F8332 and with Swap Serial No.352875080838260 was issued and delivered to some other person against IMEI No.352875080863805 which is owned by the complainant. It is impossible for the two mobile phones to have the same IMEI number.  On 29.11.2017, the complainant immediately reported the said incident on the toll free No.18001037799 provided by Sony India, upon which customer care executive on the line registered a complaint vide complaint No.I-35264176625. When no action was taken by Sony India, the complainant vide email dated 30.11.2017 brought the matter of deficiency in service, fraud and breach of trust in the notice of the Sony India Pvt. Ltd. and representatives and asked them to replace the mobile phone of the complainant with a new and defect free mobile phone but the Ops did not pay any heed; this act and conduct of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service on their part; hence, this complaint.

2.     Upon notice, the OPs have appeared and filed their joint written statement taking the preliminary objections and stated that as per the record of company the complainant purchased one Sony XPERIA XZ/F8332 with IMEI No.352875080863805 on 01.07.2017 after a detailed demonstration of the features, functions, applications along with the detailed explanation of all the warranty terms and conditions of the said mobile. The OP No.1 provides a limited warranty of one year on its products from the time of its original purchase and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty. After purchasing the said handset, the complainant approached OP No.1 on 12.09.2017 raising an issue of “Vibrating Sound” in the said mobile handset. The service centre without any delay immediately attended the complainant and inspected the handset. Upon inspection, it was observed that the Sim tray needs to be replaced. However, the same was duly replaced and the handset was made readily available in a proper working condition. The complainant also collected the said handset after properly checking the same and nothing was charged from the complainant for carrying out the said services. Everything was done absolutely free of cost. Thereafter, the complainant visited another service centre of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. located in Karnal (Haryana) for some other issue with respect to the handset. The service centre told the complainant that some clarification is required regarding the similar IMEI number handset being used in Srinagar. However, after the clarification the service centre assured the complainant that due to some confusion the service centre wrongly punched similar IMEI number manually in some other service request in Srinagar due to which some confusion arose. But the same was resolved instantly and the complainant was very well informed regarding the same. Further stated that the complainant got a notion that second hand unit was sold to him whereas the fact of the matter was that the service centre in Karnal and Srinagar after proper coordination sorted out the confusion that no second handset unit was sold to the complainant. The handset sold to the complainant was fresh and brand new but the complainant got this false notion and started raising unreasonable demands from the Ops. The Ops tried to resolve the issue raised by the complainant and even made best possible efforts in this regard. But the complainant was not ready for any solution offered by the Ops. In fact, OP No.1 sent a letter dated 30.08.2017 wherein OP No.1 specifically requested the complainant to get the handset inspected at nearby service centre for appropriate solution. But despite the said letter the complainant never turned up and got the handset inspected. The complainant has not furnished any document which establishes the fact that the handset in question was having some manufacturing defect. In reply on merits, the pleas and assertions made in the preliminary objections have been reiterated and it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.     To prove his case, the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure CA along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-4 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Annexure RA along with documents Annexure R-1 to R-4 in evidence and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

4.     We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and gone through the record minutely and carefully.

        During arguments the ld. counsel for the complainant submitted the written arguments on 18.12.2018 reiterating the version as contained in the complaint, affidavit Annexure CA and documents Annexure C-1 to C-4 and prayed for acceptance of the complaint. 

The ld. counsel for the Ops submitted the written arguments on 18.12.2018 reiterating the version as contained in the written statement, affidavit Annexure RA and documents Annexure R-1 to R-4.

5.     After hearing the ld. counsels for both the parties and perusing the relevant record available on the file, it has been revealed that the complainant purchased a mobile set Sony Make, Model Name XZ Mineral Black with IMEI No.352875080863805 and HSN Code as 85171290 for an amount of Rs.40,000/- from the Op No.1 vide bill No.1553 dated 01.07.2017 (Annexure C-1). It is further revealed that the complainant noticed certain defects in the functioning of the said mobile phone and there upon contacted the service centre (OP No.2) and deposited the mobile set with OP No.2 on 12.09.2017. We have also found that the mobile was returned back to the complainant on 06.10.2017 as is evident from perusal of job sheet Annexure C-2. The complainant being unsatisfied with the services of the OP No.2 contacted another authorized service centre of OP No.1 at Karnal, who informed the complainant that another set bearing the same IMEI number i.e.352875080863805 was being used and possessed by a person in Srinagar and thereupon the complainant approached the OP No.2, who upon insistence of the complainant provided him invoice dated 14.11.2017 Annexure C-3 mentioning that another set bearing the same IMEI No.352875080863805  had been possessed by a person namely Jehangir Ahmad in Kashmir. It is the further version of the complainant that he could not avail the complete services of the mobile set due to the deficiency and unfair trade practices as adopted by the Ops. The complainant reiterated about the said incident of selling a mobile set having same IMEI number as that of the complainant to a person namely Jehangir Ahmad in Kashmir on toll free No.18001037799 of OP No.1 by lodging the complaint No.I-35264176625 followed by an email dated 30.11.2017 (Annexure C-4) reiterating his version about the indulgence of Ops into unfair trade practices. The complainant has prayed for refund of the cost of mobile set mainly on the following two grounds.

1. That the Ops have failed to rectify the defects of the mobile set.
2. That the IMEI number of a mobile set is a unique number and due to the negligent and deficient conduct of the Ops the same IMEI No.352875080863805 as held by the complainant was assigned to another person namely Jehangir Ahmad in Kashmir.  

        The Ops have resisted the claim of the complainant stating that the said defects in the mobile set were removed and the set was returned to the complainant on 06.10.2017 after removal of all defects. Regarding holding of a mobile set with the same IMEI number by a person in Jammu and Kashmir, the Ops have alleged that this mistake occurred due to incorrect punching of the IMEI number by the service centre and it was a typographical mistake/error and due to this error, the complainant was not prevented from utilizing/availing the services of the mobile set.

6.     Having perused the relevant record available on the file, we have found no force and substance in the version of the Ops. The version of the Ops is falsified by the recitals contained in the column of comments of the job sheet Annexure C-2 to the effect that sim tray is required but part is not available. A bare perusal of said job sheet Annexure C-2 reveals that the mobile set in question bearing IMEI No.352875080863805 was deposited with the Ops on 12.09.2017 vide job No.W117091200704 and Ticket ID No.17091200704 and that the said mobile was delivered to the complainant on 06.10.2017 with the following comments:-

“NEED TO REQ SIM TRAY BUT PART LIST NOT AVAILABLE”

The above remarks made by the OP No.2 in job sheet Annexure C-2 live no doubt that the mobile set was returned to the complainant without any replacement of the sim tray and because of which the complainant was prevented from the complete usage of the mobile set in question. Further, we find specific version of the complainant as contained in Para No.20 of the affidavit Annexure CA that sim tray of the mobile has not been replaced by the Ops till date. The Ops have countered the said plea of the complainant stating that the complainant has never approached the Ops for the replacement of the sim tray after 06.10.2017. The ld. counsel for the Ops contended that the complainant was asked by the OP vide letter dated 30.08.2017 to submit the mobile set with the Ops for the replacement of the sim tray. We reject the said plea of the Ops about non-approaching of the complainant as also the submission of the mobile set with the Ops. We have found that the complainant has been approaching the Ops by way of lodging complaint on the toll free number as also by sending email dated 30.11.2017 Annexure C-4. Moreover, after receipt of notice in the present complaint, we find no efforts on the part of the Ops asking the complainant to deposit the mobile set in question with the Ops for the purposes of the replacing of the sim tray. Admittedly, the part namely, sim tray was not available with the Ops during the period i.e. 12.09.2017 till 06.10.2017 but at no stage after 06.10.2017 it was offered by the Ops to the complainant informing him that required part i.e. sim tray is available with them. If the necessary part was available with them after 06.10.2017 then Ops should have informed the complainant about the availability of the spare part asking him for submitting the mobile set with them so as to enable them to replace the sim tray.

        It would be pertinent to mention here that a perusal of Annexure C-2 reveals the name of the technician as Mr. Noor Mohammed but we do not come across any affidavit of said technical person in support of the contention of the Ops that the mobile set was returned to the complainant after carrying out the necessary repairs. Regarding issuance of same IMEI number to Jehangir Ahmad of Jammu and Kashmir as is evident from the job sheet Annexure C-3, the Ops have not clarified as to how and by whom the same IMEI number was issued to the said person. We do not come across any affidavit of the person, who allegedly due to mistake and error issued the same IMEI number and in the absence of affidavit of the concerned person who allegedly committed this mistake, bald version of the Ops having no evidentiary value is not acceptable to us. Hence, it leads us to the irresistible conclusion that there has been lapse and deficiency on the part of the Ops while delivering services to the complainant.  

7.     As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions:-

1. That the Ops will refund the cost of the said mobile set i.e. Rs.40,000/- to the complainant without any interest subject to the submission of  the mobile set in question by the complainant with the OPs.

 

2. The Ops shall pay a lump sum amount of Rs.3,300/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation charges.

8.     The OPs shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OPs failing which the complainant shall be entitled to the interest of 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.40,000/- w.e.f. from the date of this order till realization. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced

16.01.2019         RUBY SHARMA      JAGMOHAN SINGH       SATPAL

                            MEMBER             MEMBER               PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                         SATPAL

                                         PRESIDENT